Dismissed

Rajesh Choudhary S/O Shri Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2022SAW/983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal filed by non-parties challenging a statement made by the Advocate General during the disposals of related writ petitions regarding selection processes and reserved category candidates. The Court held that without an effective order passed on the statement, such a challenge is not maintainable in appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal is dismissed; appellants directed to file appropriate proceedings if their rights are affected.

Rajesh Choudhary S/O Shri Sultan Singh Vs State… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 983/2021

¶3

Rajesh Choudhary S/o Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Vpo Chomu Purohitan Via Khatu Shyamji, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Sikar-332602 (Rajasthan).

¶4

Ashok Kumar Gurjat S/o Shri Anil Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo Goner, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur303108.

¶5

Narendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Man Singh Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Sikandra Dhani, Burja, Tehsil Sikrai, Dausa-303326.

¶6

Rakesh Raj S/o Shri Baboon Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of B-210, Hkm Nagar, Alwar-301001.

¶7

Abhishek Asavariya S/o Shri Anil Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Police Line, Near B Gate, Alwar301001.

¶8

Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of House No.9, Gali No.3, Hanuman Colony, Sri Ganganagar-335001.

¶9

Amit Kumar S/o Abhay Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Q. No.40, Police Line, Gayatri Mandir Road, Alwar-301001

¶10

Sourabh S/o Shri Indrajeet, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Chak-1, B Chhoti Vpo Mohanpura, Sri Ganganagar-335001.

¶11

Dayal Singh S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Solankiyo Ka Bera, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

¶12

Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Dhani-Narayan Singh Ki Village- Gonera, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur-303108.

¶13

Pintu S/o Shri Babu Mahawar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Vpo Soroth Tehsil Hindaun City, Karauli.

¶14

Govind Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Mehara Jatuwas, Tehsil Khetri, Jhunjhunu-333036.

¶15

Uday Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Devi Kishan Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Machhipura, Tehsil Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur-322201.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[SAW-983/2021]

¶18

Avinash Chander Maurya S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Maurya, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 10/228, Mukta Prasad Colony, Bikaner-334001.

¶19

----Appellants

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶22

The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302018.

¶23

Gaurav Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 338, Gayatri Nagar, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302006.

¶24

Surbhi Khatri D/o Ajay Khatri, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 5D1, Huddco Jnv Colony, District Bikaner, Rajasthan334001.

¶25

Anand Joshi S/o Bhanwar Lal Joshi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bisso Ka Chowk, Near Dwarkadheesh Temple, District Bikaner, Rajasthan-334001.

¶26

Deshraj Singh Chouhan S/o Surya Singh Chouhan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Pardamoru, Post Vageri, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur-314031.

¶27

Aman Kant Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Chitosh, Post Dharmrer, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar-301408.

¶28

Nitin Purohit S/o Madan Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Binani Chowk, Dujari Mohalla, District Bikaner334001.

¶29

Anjana Modi D/o Asuram Modi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bina Desar Ka Dera, Chowtina Well, District Bikaner334001.

¶30

Pankaj Sankhla S/o Satya Narayan Sankhla, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. 1065/1, Ana Sagar, Mall Mohalla, Krishanganj, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶31

Bhavesh Solanki S/o Mukesh Solanki, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 162, B Block Sector 14, District Udaipur313001.

(3 of 4)

[SAW-983/2021]

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. R.N Mathur Sr. Advocate through VC
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Pradeep Mathur through VC
	Mr. SandeepTaneja through VC

¶36

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶37

Order

¶38

24/01/2022

¶39

The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 26.10.2021 passed in writ petition No. 8788/2021. The order records the statement of the learned Advocate General and further records that the petitioners are satisfied with the assurance given by the learned Advocate General. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:-

¶40

“Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General submitted that the respondents shall prepare an additional select list prescribing percentage aggregate marks by inviting all such candidates who obtain such percentage aggregate marks so fixed by the respondents without permitting migration of the reserved category candidates into general category. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General submitted that such additional select list shall be without prejudice to the candidates who find place in the select list declared on 16.07.2021. Learned Advocate General submitted that the candidates falling in additional select list shall be permitted to take Phase-II examination to be held separately in near future.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners feels satisfied with the assurance extended by the learned Advocate General and submitted that the issues raised by him, stand resolved. In view thereof, nothing survives for consideration for this Court in these writ petitions which are disposed of in terms of assurance extended by the learned Advocate General.”

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

[SAW-983/2021]

¶44

We notice that the appellants were not parties to the said petition. They contend that the statement made by learned Advocate General before the learned Single Judge adversely affects them in the selection process. They therefore filed the appeal.

¶45

After some discussion at the bar, we are of the opinion that the statement of the learned Advocate General before the learned Single Judge and on which the learned Single Judge has not passed any effective order, cannot be a subject matter of challenge in appeal. We are conscious that if such statement of the Advocate General hurts the appellants and affects them negatively, it is open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law. However since the learned Single Judge has not commented on any of these aspects, this appeal is not the correct remedy. This appeal is therefore disposed of leaving it open for the appellants to file appropriate proceedings if the statement of the Advocate General as taken before the learned Single Judge or in any other manner, affects the petitioners’ rights.

¶46

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶48

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶49

N. Gandhi/42

Rajesh Choudhary S/O Shri Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Choudhary S/O Shri Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Raman Gupta S/O Shri Murari Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Officer, Vs Pawan Bansal S/O Shri Ramnarayan Bansal

Budhi Prakash Sharma S/O Harsh Narayan Sharma Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Lokesh Thakur Son of Late Shri Bhikam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs M/S Shree Cement Product (India) Pvt. Limited

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Harish Chand Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan